On Mar 18, 6:28am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:31am, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:32am, Sebastian Kaliszewski Sebastian.Kalisze wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:20am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the
culprit....the preamp. Audio Research SP6B v s. Onkyo
P301. So much for big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions.
Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.
Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.
Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, please!
Assertions of fact. No confusion on my part.
Not fact, but just your conslusions. Conclusions which are often based
on mistaken assumptions (as shown below).
The
primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
individually in various clock stores.
So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.
But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.
Well, you were provided with factual information to the contrary.
Information backed by (basic) physics (see below).
No I wasn't. you did not provide any such factual information nor did
you back it with any physics.
[...snip...]
Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.
Wchich one?
I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which is
singular?
So may I rephprase: Which ones?
studios 1,2 and 3.
Which is not the case based on the very description presented on the
Abbey Road webpage, esp. the studio 3.
It is the case if one understands the basic terminology of room
acoustics. I provided references to that terminology with a link to a
well written article on room acoustics. Until you can provide
references that trump the ones I have provided you don't really get to
rewrite the books and articles on the subject that hold court.
You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website.
I did.
But one does have to have a basic understanding of room acoustics and
the terminology used for describing room acoustics to understand that
the description of the three studios clearly is not one of an
acoustically dead studio space. This is getting old. Please provide
some sort of reference to support your assertions that trump my
references.
Just sayin it don't make it so.
But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.
Mistaking anechoic chambers and acoustically dead studios noted.
No mistake was made. I offered an excellent reference to the meaning
of acoustically dead space. you have offered nothing to refute that.
Again, just sayin it don't make it so.
Mistaking concert and recording venue noted.
Really? Again you might want to take this issue up with Abby Road
Studios themselves.
"Studio One is the world's largest purpose-built recording studio. The
space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece choir
simultaneously. Studio One's acoustic is as famous as the location,
offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous types
of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. The
live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D concert
grand and a celeste are also available.
The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for live
music events."
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/
We have pretty much reached to point where your arguments rise to the
level of John Cleese in the Monty Python sketch called the argument.
Clearly according to the folks at Abby Road studios Studio one is both
a fine recording venue as well as concert venue. where do you think
most classical recordings are made? I'll give you a hint, concert
halls. Sorry but you have dipped into the utterly obsurd here.
Sorry, Scott, but the mentioned terms all have estabilished meaning in the
audio engineering. So, yes, venue could be 'too dead', 'quite dead', 'very
dead', etc. Ridiculing that won't help.
Example quote: "For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dead
when its RT60 falls below 500 ms". This is direct quote from Siegfired
Linkwitz when he talks about room acoustics. He is the man (one of the
two) behind Linkwitz-Riley crossover (things used in vast amounts of audio
equipment in the wild), designer of loudspeakres, etc. I think, we could
safely assume that Dr. Linkwitz knows the terminology...
That's nice. but it doesn't support anything you have said. a less
lively room is a more dead room relatively speaking but that does not
make a room a dead room per se. An anechoic chamber is a dead room by
definition. anything with more reverb is a less dead room.
Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s) in
the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.
We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber on DSOTM.
That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was used on
that recording.
How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording?
I did my homework.
So now present the facts (no conslusions, but basic facts) you found doing
that homework. As for now you're only saind "nope", "no", "not", etc
without actually backing it.
you should consider taking your own advice. I already have provided
links in previous posts. You can go back and check. I'm pretty tired
of repeting myself as it is.
If you have something specific to say about the recording then say it
and we can go from there.
That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used then
state of the art processing.
really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.
I won't do your homework. The facts are such, that DSoM was heavely
processed (one of the most processed "high rank" recordings of its time).
Well how about doing what you demand of me and support your assertions
with references. My position was and is that the assertion that the
recording was done in an acoustically dead studio space and then
artificial reverb was added later is simply not true. I have clearly
debunked the assertion that it was recorded in an acoustically dead
studio space. as for the artificial reverb.. here is a quote fromt he
recording engineer.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...n_parsons.html
Any effects created before 1975 were done with either tape or echo
chambers or some kind of acoustic treatment. No magic black boxes!
The fact is that it was heavely multi track recorderd as well. If you
assert, that echo chamber was never included in the processing chain
except that one particular use, present material to back it up, please.
I have not made any such assertion. you might want to read what I have
written more carefully. Now if you want to discuss other uses of an
echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM please cite specific tracks and
we will discuss them.
[...snip...]
As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?
Acoustically dead studio space is not anechoic. That's the estabilished
nomenclature. You might not like it, but it's there and if you wan't to
have a meaningful dicussion you have no other option, but to accept it.
Sorry but I am going with the literature on room acoustics over your
word. If you feel you have any references in the literature that
trumps whT I have already provided then please present it.
Otherwise...just sayin it doesn't make it so.
And then, I've actually shown that nothing prevents typical clock shop
from being pretty dead acoustically.
But I have. They are called reflective surfaces and every clock shop I
have ever been in is filled with them. of course the real irony here
is that the particular piece we are talking about is pretty rich with
reverb. Is it your position that Alan Parsons went to the trouble of
deadening the various clock shops in which he recorded the clocks and
then later added the reverb in the mix?
And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops.....
Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...
No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
recording of DSOTM.
Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?
I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?
Nope, you presented your conclusions coming from your misunderstanding of
the terminology, as well as misreading Abbey descritptions. And, as we all
know, a conslusion based on false (mistaken) premise is not a fact.
You mean like my misreading of Studio one being both a recording
studio as well as a concert hall where they tell us that Abby Road
studio one is a good venue for recording as well as live concerts?
Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studo. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead?
Yes, most are 
oooooops.
Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what clock
shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the space is
actually a dead acoustic space.
I've shown in another post.
Nope. you have shown no such thing.
Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies.
Sure it is.
Sure?
Yes I am sure.
It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough.
The problem is that for low frequencies the material won't be thick enough.
So you are personally running around the world making sure that there
is such a limiit on thicknesses? Really?
this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.
Nope, it's only your misconception, not basic knowledge in the world of
room acoustics. The real basic knowledge in the world of room acoustics it
that thickness of the material must be non neglible compared to wave20
length. I'll leave calculating 100-400Hz wave lengths as a little homework
assignment to you.
It's about 11 feet. although if it is against a reflective wall we are
talking 5 1/2 feet. I suppose you live in a universe where this can
not exist?
"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.
No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion.
Nope. Check wave physics 101 first, please. This is in fact the very same
physics which make CD, DVD, and similar optical media players work at all
(only the wave is of different kind, being acoustic not electromagnetic).
Then, as an additional effect clock boxes provide sound traps. For more,
see below.
If you care to provide any legitimate references that support your
assertion that crude diffusion will make a room acoustically dead as
such a term is used in room acosutics then pleae provide a link. Just
sayin it don't make it true. you demand such references from me and I
actually come up wih the goods.
But a
difuse acoustic field is hardly a dead acoustic space. Oooooops. You
really need to do your homework on room acoustics if you are going t=
o
discuss them here.
I did some time ago
Where? Where is the reference? You have provided no links.
Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)
I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.
Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.
Neither are you. And it's you who equate anechoic with just 'pretty dead'
or 'basically dead', contrary to the terminology used in the field.
But i provided a varifiable reference that discusses the terminology.
again if you have a reference that trumps mine then provide it.
Otherwise all you offer is opinion stated as fact.
Anechoic is
extremely dead.
Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.
See above. You're creating your own terminology. A terminology in
disagreemens with what specuialists in the field use.
See what above? Your opinion stated over and over again? I have read
the literature on the subject and provided you with a link to such
literature that supports my assertions.
Again, after Dr. Linkwitz: "...a room becomes too dead when its RT60 fall=s
below 500 ms". 500ms RT60 is quite far away from anechoic. Oooooooops
He is talking specifically about the use of his speakers. Jeez. He
certainly is not talking about the studios at Abby Road. So yeah,
oooops.
Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.
Yeah and Steven Wright mentioned having an intense argument with a
roulette wheel dealer over what he considered to be an odd number.
Does not matter how explicitely you state misinformation. It is stil=
l
misinformation.
I didn't state a misinformation. I only clarified what I mean (and what
Arny meant talking about dead studio space, since what both I and Arny use
is a common terminology) as I saw that your understanding of the term
might be off from how it's typically uinderstood in the field.
And yet I, unlike you, have provided a reference from literature on
room acoustics to support "my" use of the terminology.
The terminology is established.
Indeed.
Your consideration is
irrelevant.
It's enough for me that it's in agreement with terminology used in the
field
Prove it. I have offered my proof. Your turn
so do tell us
how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of all
things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more common
than not.
Rather densely packed space.
Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?
Why would you assume the contrary? I'm just describing typical clock shop
Please cite a typical clock shop.
Here are some images randomly chosen of various clock shops. Clearly
they are not acoustically dead spaces
http://search.aol.com/aol/image?qclo...v_tcomsearch50
in your typical European city. Or, could you point to particular shops
where Parsons did his recordings (and demosntrate that the're not typical
clock shops in a typical Western city)?
You have yet to show that a "typical" clock shop in any city is
acoustically dead. I have now offered a link that randomly shows
various clock shops. the first 10 are anything but acoustccially dead
spaces but quite obviously fairly reverberant spaces due to all the
reflective surfaces. Again I bring the goods and you bring opinion
stated as fact.
Lot of little corners and "corrugations"
Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.
It does when those boxes disminsions are close to quarter-wave length
I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
the basics of room acoustics.
Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.
references please.
Check any wave physics 101 handbook.
I have. You are wrong.
I recomend to you reading about such basic concepts like wave
interference. Esp, what happens to a wave reflecting from a corrugated
area with depth being close to quarter it's length. All in all it's
absortion rate of 0.5 in the range of wavelenghts for which evenly
distributed corrugation sizes are close to quarter wave dimensions.
I suggest you visit some clock shops!
Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.
This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2
"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."
Reread the last sentence. Then (re)read the fragment from the very page
you quoted (but you didn't mention):
Your point?
"In order to achieve large surface area, a wall construction is used that
includes wedges of sound absorptive material, the base of which is usually
between 8 C397 8 in. (20 C397 20 cm) and 8 C397 24 in. (20 C397 60 cm), and the length
of which is usually 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). These wedges resemble
stalagmites and stalactites and absorb about 99% of incident sound energy
over most of the audio-frequency ranges."
All of this is of course a description how to create anechoic (extremely
dead) space, not some 'pretty dead'.
Bottom line is it completely supports my assertions and refutes yours
and yet you are now citing it as support? fact is it states an
anechoic chamber is an acoustically dead space and visa versa and it
shows it being done with absorbtive material, something you claim
absorbtive material is not good for doing. Oooooooooops.
Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various sizes is
quite good absorber.
Reference please.
See above. It's basic physics.
Show me a reference.
Room is considered prettey dead if it's RT60 (reverberation time down to
-60dB) is below 0.2-0.3s. Mind, that typical living room RT60 is about
0.6s. To get such time for your typical (living or clock schop) room one
needs an absortion rate of only 0.16. As demonstrated above, abosortion
rate is much higher. Absortion rate of about 1/3 is good enough to get
RT60 down to 0.25s.
Well we were talking about studio spaces were we not? and we were
talking about the claim that DSOTM was recorded in a studio space that
was acoustically dead, not "pretty dead" but dead. Now go back to the
abby Road Studios webpage and do tell me which of those studios as
they stand are either acoustically dead as in an anechoic chamber or
(lets allow you to move the bar and ignore the original claim) even
pretty dead as you descibe a "pretty dead" room.
Finding the equation for estimating RT60, as conceived about 120 years ago
by Wallace Sabine is left as an excercise to the reader.
The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.
But diffusion does not make a space acoustically dead.
But at higher frequencies the available soft furniture is enough (as
material is thick enough for those).
Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."
Nothing strange or wrong with that.
Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
incorrect?
Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!
I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.
As noted above, acoustically dead studio is pretty never anechoic.
Or more accurately studio spaces are almost never acoustically dead as
the term is actually used in descriptions of room acoustics.
You
should not derive your understanding of matters based on mistaken
understanding of the terminology actually used in the field.
Unlike you I have actually provided a reference that explicitely
states what is an acoustically dead space. It's an anechoic chamber by
definition. If you want to argue with my reference then please at
least cite a better one that explicitely talks about what is and is
not an "acoustically dead space."